Henderson and Daniels (1917) referred to this species in Utah as a race of Planorbis trivolvis. Chamberlin and Jones (1929) and Jones (1940a) called it in Utah a race of the same species, which they referred to as Helisoma trivolvis. Chamberlin and Roscoe (1948) regarded it as a full species, which they called Helisoma binneyi.
No subspecies are recognized within this species (i.e., the species is monotypic).
Status in Utah
Thirteen historical occurrences of this species in Utah have been reported; however, 2 of these are questionable. This species has been reported Utah from the north-central (Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties), south-central (Piute County), southwestern (Washington County), and questionably from the northeastern (Daggett County) parts of the state. (The 2 locality records from Cache County cited by Chamberlin and Jones  and attributed by them to "Henderson and Daniels 1916 and 1917" apparently were incorrectly assigned by them to this species. Henderson and Daniels  stated that these specimens were Planorbis trivolvis hornii.)
Little information concerning abundance of this species in Utah is available. Jones (1940a) listed, for Utah, 5 lots totaling 35 specimens as well as 3 lots of "several". It probably is not especially rare in the places that it occurs in Utah.
Although threats to this species in Utah are not precisely known, its disappearance from Utah Lake and probably other locations in Utah, together with evident threats to aquatic ecosystems in north-central Utah (especially along the Wasatch Front), the area containing most known Utah localities of the species, suggest that the species is threatened in this state. Alteration, degradation, and loss of wetlands and other aquatic sites are almost certainly among the most important threats to the species in Utah.
This species has disappeared from Utah Lake, where it was once widespread and apparently common; Utah Lake probably supported the largest population of this species in the state. Several other historical occurrences in Utah are also believed to have been extirpated. Thus the species has declined and, in view of threats to aquatic ecosystems in the parts of Utah where it is known historically to have occurred, likely continues to do so.
Inventory is needed at or near sites where this species has been reported historically in Utah.
Habitats Utilized in Utah
Reported Utah localities have been mainly lakes, but a creek, canals, a pond, and a trout pond have also been mentioned (see especially Chamberlin and Jones 1929, Jones 1940a). Chamberlin and Jones (1929), writing of this species, commented: "They live on the bottom of lakes in quite stagnant water."